Will passing the Resolution to End Corporate Personhood in
Point Arena suddenly make all of societys ills go away?
No. But neither will any other single act by any individual or
group of people. This is but one step in what surely will be a
long process to change the way people think about corporations.
Changing the way people think about corporations will have huge
consequences.

So much of todays human activity is carried on through
the corporate structure that corporate-think pervades our entire
culture. Politicians, the press, commentators, academics, consumers,
workers are all steeped in corporate-think. It takes a great deal
of effort for any individual to avoid thinking and behaving in
ways that facilitate corporate commerce. Public discourse about
the world in which we live is filtered through corporate-think.
Our institutions of governance make decisions for us based on
corporate-think. As consumers, we are driven to acquire goods
for the least cost because, as workers, the corporations pay us
the least wage.

Wouldnt it be nice to be rid of this influence on our
lives? But it is such a large issue. And we are all so busy leading
our own lives. And, if we can find the time, fighting for our
favorite cause. How could we unravel such an entrenched idea,
anyway? Looking at corporate personhood is a great place to start.
It is key to both understanding the history of how corporations
became so powerful and understanding why corporate power is such
a difficult subject to fathom.

The history of how corporations came to be viewed as "persons"
opens our eyes to the role that powerful moneyed interests played
in the history of the United States. During the Civil War and
the period following a great deal of wealth was newly concentrated
in the hands of a few corporations and the individuals that owned
them. Among the ways these individuals used their wealth was to
hire lawyers to fight for them in court and lobbyists to promote
legislation that gave them advantages. They quickly learned that
their money could elect judges and legislators, which made the
work of their lawyers and lobbyists much easier. So when the Southern
Pacific Railroad went to the Supreme Court in 1886 with a case
in which they could argue for corporate personhood, the former
corporate lawyers on the bench decided corporations were "persons"
without even requiring briefs or any argument on the issue.

Seeing this example of how money has corrupted or democracy
leads one to look for other examples. Going back to the beginning
of these United States, we encounter that curious fact that only
rich, white, male, landowners were allowed to participate in this
noble experiment in democracy. Is it any wonder that this limited
class of individuals designed a system that took care of the needs
of their class? James Madison said, "The primary goal of
government is to protect the wealthy minority from the majority."
Viewing the history of the United States with that idea as a yardstick,
one has to conclude that Madisons priority prevailed. We
need to recognize the contradictions between the promise that
is still present in the concept of democracy and historical facts
of the particular democracy the founders created. We need to understand
and acknowledge how a small group of wealthy men made democracy
work for them. Then we need to think about the ways our democracy
must change to make it work for all of us.

Once we begin to look at our history with a new perspective,
we can start to sort out our own truth. Our schooling, our news
sources dont prepare us to think about the questions we
need to be asking. We need to take a deep breath and focus truth.
Once we are in that place, the idea that corporations are persons
is absurd. People are not creations of the government. Corporations
are creations of the government. The government is a creation
of the people.

Thomas Jefferson was clear about that when he wrote the Declaration
of Independence. He wrote that people "are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." People are "endowed
with these rights simply by virtue of being people. There is no
People Code in our laws that defines what people are, as there
is a Corporations Code that defines what corporations are. In
the Declaration of Independence Jefferson goes on to say "That
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
People create government.

Jefferson is not the only person in history to express the
idea that people have some special qualities. Plenty of religious
figures and philosophers have devoted their lives to contemplating
the special qualities of people. Jefferson derived much of his
political philosopher from John Locke and David Hume. Locke (1632-1704)
lectured at Oxford on moral philosophy. He believed that people
were governed by natural law and that government must be restrained
by the sovereignty of the people. In 1825 the University of Virginia
governing board recognized that Lockes doctrines on government
are one of the bases of the United States philosophy of government.
Hume (1711-1776) was influenced by Locke.

Hume is the source for perhaps the most enigmatic phrase in
the Declaration of Independence, "the pursuit of happiness."
Hume saw the pursuit of happiness as a moral quest. Individual
happiness depends on an unselfish regard for the general welfare
of society. Right and wrong arise from a regard for the general
welfare. Thomas Jefferson adopted this view when he said, "The
order of nature is that individual happiness shall be inseparable
from the practice of virtue."

The moral dimension of people cannot be duplicated in a corporation.
Morality is part of the genetic history of people. Thomas Jefferson
said it this way, " The Creator would indeed have been a
bungling artist had he intended man for a social animal without
implanting in him social dispositions. The paleontologist, Richard
Leakey agreed when, in his book, Origins, he said, "cooperation
is mans adaptive dimension." Corporations are driven
by very different considerations. Maximum economic return is the
core principle of corporations. Shareholders can win a lawsuit
against a corporation if they can prove the corporation did not
maximize the economic return to the shareholders.

Yes, there is a distinction between people and corporations.
That distinction is not a mere technicality or something of only
esoteric interest. It is a fundamental issue that is at the heart
of all our disputes with corporations. So it is perplexing that
the learned justices of the 1886 Supreme Court would conclude
that it was so self-evident that corporations are "persons."
Perhaps if they had allowed argument on the subject they would
have heard the opposing point of view. The longer we are silent
on the point the more entrenched corporations become. There were
people who spoke out against the ruling at the time. Their voices
are now largely forgotten. Yet we take inspiration from them and
rekindle the fight for personhood for people. We hope this argument
finds resonance across this land and people reject the corporations
insistence on a place at the table set for natural persons. We,
at least, keep the struggle alive.

What we struggle for is control over our own lives. Control
of our government, control of our places of work and control of
our communities. Corporations have asserted that they are entitled
to an equal voice in the determination of what is good in these
areas because the Constitution gives them all the rights of "persons."
How do we talk about the rights of persons in the same way as
Locke and Jefferson if we include corporations as "persons."
If corporations are "persons," how can persons be endowed
by their Creator with unalienable rights? Corporations dont
have a Creator. Corporations are not sentient beings and cannot
be endowed in the sense Jefferson used that concept. Thus we loose
the sense of our own in-born power; the absolute right we have
to control our governance by virtue of the fact that we are people.
If corporations have an equal right to control our governance,
then we must find some other explanation for the legitimacy of
our self-government.

Perhaps this conundrum explains the declining participation
in our democracy. People are certainly aware that they have lost
control of the governance of their lives. They know it intuitively,
but lack a reasoned explanation that gives them back some sense
of their own power. The examination of corporate personhood and
its links to the history of the power of wealth in this society
may be that explanation. To simply voice the undeniable truth
that corporations are not "persons" is an empowering
act. It taps into the Quaker precept of speaking truth to power.
It is a step to reclaiming ones own legitimacy from someone
who has usurped it. It acknowledges that illegitimate power cannot
endure in the face of truth.

One of the strengths of our society is that truth eventually
has its day. Somehow the will of the masses asserts itself. Our
institutions have the capacity to facilitate input from various
points of view and muddle toward a solution that incorporates
a diversity of needs. We were not afforded that opportunity on
the question of corporate personhood. The process was clearly
flawed. Our society deserves the chance to get it right. Only
a full airing and discussion of the subject can clear this blot
from our collective thinking.

Corporations are given tremendous advantages in the realm of
commerce. In return for those advantages, granted by our government,
we are entirely justified to impose special obligations on corporations.
If they do not want the obligations, then they can forego the
advantages. It is fundamentally unjust that they take the advantages
without accepting the obligations.

No discussion of imposing obligations on corporations in return
for their advantages can proceed while there is corporate personhood.
As "persons" they cannot be treated differently from
natural persons. We cannot begin to discuss a simple step like
banning corporate campaign contributions until corporate personhood
is ended. The more complicated questions about the ways in which
corporations and the corporate culture make decision that effect
our daily lives are also impossible to address while corporations
carry this protective mantle of corporate personhood.

Once we are able to shed the fiction that corporations are
"persons" we can begin to think of corporations in their
proper place  subservient to people. Once we are free to
see them in that place, we can define our culture as we want to
see it. We can resume self-governance.